In managed print service (MPS) environments, imaging devices of an entity are aggregated together in a network to coordinate imaging, e.g., printing, copying, faxing, etc., and enforce policy. Invariably, the imaging devices are of disparate makes and models. They have different ages and expected lifetimes and possess different imaging capacities and functions. The devices typify printers, copiers, multi-function printers (MFPs), fax machines, etc. and execute imaging in monochrome and/or color. In a fleet of imaging devices, it is not uncommon to have dozens, hundreds or thousands of devices. They reside scattered throughout floors of offices, labs, cubicles, etc. in a campus of buildings.
When considering joining an MPS program, entities balance the upfront cost of paying for new service with the later savings that comes from fewer imaging operations, often as much as thirty percent or more. Factors influencing the decision to join a program are founded upon assessment of the existing imaging infrastructure. Assessment includes identifying imaging devices, defining their whereabouts, and determining capacities. It is also necessary to evaluate network features, such as bandwidth, speed, latency, etc. and determining hardware components, such as routers, switches, and the like. To do this, an evaluator conducts a campus walkthrough and notes the details of each imaging device and its network. Although accurate information provides better estimates of ownership cost in an MPS engagement, the data available to the evaluator is not always straightforward or easy to get.
For instance, an evaluator might print a test page from an imaging device that identifies itself as a Hewlett Packard Laser Jet “LJ 8150.” To assess costs for the device such as the original purchase price, toner, and the length of time the device might have been used in the customer environment, reference is often taken to the data provided by Buyers Laboratory, Inc. (BLI), or some other industry guide providing competitive data in the imaging arts. In the BLI data for “LJ 8150,” however, the following models are found: HP LaserJet 8150; HP LaserJet 8150n; HP LaserJet 8150dn; HP LaserJet 8150hn; and HP LaserJet 8150mfp. Each has its own unique pricing, capabilities, and introduction dates. Choosing the correct model is necessary for accurate analysis. Yet, when an evaluator reconciles its test page printout Hewlett Packard Laser Jet “LJ 8150” to the BLI data, sometimes days later, it can be confusing to know exactly which model of “LJ 8150” was present in the customer's environment. A need exists to overcome this problem.
Evaluators also like to associate capacity to specific imaging devices. By knowing imaging volumes of a printer, MFP, copier, etc., evaluators can make informed judgments regarding the effective utilization of devices, such as whether they should be replaced or have their imaging operations modified. Devices whose print capacities far exceed their average print volume are underutilized, for example, while devices whose print capacities are stretched by their average print volumes are over-utilized. Either situation is inefficient. Since evaluators often receive volume information from IT departments on reams of hardcopy printouts, they have little to no understanding of device capacity while on their walkthrough past the fleet. A further need exists to solve this problem.